Text of the measure

Ballot language

A YES VOTE would enact the proposed law eliminating state criminal and civil penalties related to the medical use of marijuana, allowing patients meeting certain conditions to obtain marijuana produced and distributed by new state-regulated centers or, in specific hardship cases, to grow marijuana for their own use.

Support

The following is information obtained from the supporting side of the ballot measure:

According to reports, if the measure was enacted by voters, the National Organization for Positive Medicine hoped to establish a "marijuana compassion center" in Wakefield, Massachusetts. The group filed signatures for a local initiative to do so on April 1, 2012. The initiative stated that it wanted "a special bylaw requesting that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health issue the National Organization for Positive Medicine (Federal Tax ID No. 019-64-5887) a registration to operate a single not-for-profit medical marijuana compassion center in the Town of Wakefield, MA."[4]

During a hearing from the Joint Committee on Public Health, Boston resident Eric McCoy stated: "I'm almost 60 years old and the only reason I'm able to function every day is because of marijuana. I would be lying flat on a bed otherwise because of muscle spasms."[5]

Opposition

The following is information obtained from the supporting side of the ballot measure:

Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association executive director Wayne Sampson stated, "We’re very concerned that it is so loosely written, relative to who can obtain it and for what reasons."[6]

The Massachusetts Medical Society, which represented 24,000 doctors in the state, approved a resolution during the weekend of May 19, 2012 to oppose legalizing medicinal marijuana without scientific proof that it would be safe and effective on patients.[7]

After testifying at a Statehouse hearing relating to the measure, State SenatorStanley Rosenberg stated: "In the petition, any physician can say they believe medical marijuana will help this patient whether or not their condition or disease was listed on the legislation. I think that's a huge loophole that creates the opportunity for rogue physicians to go into the marijuana distribution business."[5]

Pediatrician Dr. Louis Fazen stated he would feel uncomfortable prescribing marijuana with little knowledge known about it, commenting on what he does know about the drug: "Smoking marijuana is dangerous to your health. We know that."[5]

Other perspectives

Massachusetts Attorney GeneralMartha Coakley commented on the effects of the measure, but also stated that her office remains neutral on the proposal. Coakley said in an interview, "My position is if this passes as a ballot question it’s going to cause a huge headache making sure it’s not abused."[8]

The Patriot Ledger stated in an editorial that the measure should be decided by voters, not the Legislature, saying, "This is an issue that we believe should be decided by the citizens of the commonwealth, not in the behind-the-scenes muscling that goes on in the offices and corridors at the Statehouse."[9]

Media endorsements

Opposition

The Boston Herald stated, "We’re taking our guidance from the Massachusetts Medical Society, which opposes Question 3 because the safety and efficacy of marijuana as a prescription for pain have not been adequately proven. Pain is a terrible thing for the truly sick, but this ballot question isn’t the answer."[10]

Heidi Heilman et al v Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth

In May 2012, The Massachusetts Prevention Alliance filed a petition to the state supreme judicial court requesting that the wording of the ballot question be changed. According to reports, the group claimed that the wording of the measure hid key provisions of the potential state statute. For example, the group argued that a network of dispensaries would be created to comply with the law, if enacted, but that this was not shown clearly by the wording.[11]

During the case hearings, associate justice on the state Supreme Judicial Court Robert Cordy was skeptical of the ballot measure's wording, indicating he was open to a re-writing of the proposal's language, asking the Attorney General, "If it was entitled, 'Medical use of cigarettes,' would you have a problem with that? What's your evidence there is a medical use of marijuana?"[12]

Around June 8, 2012, the supreme judicial court ruled in favor of the opponents who filed the lawsuit, stating that the measure's language was misleading. The court ruled that Coakley rewrite the ballot language.[13]

In a decision on July 2, 2012 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Associate Justice Robert J. Cordy approved newly rewritten language of the measure.

According to reports, the main part of the language that was rewritten was the "yes" statement reads that reads, "A yes vote would enact the proposed law eliminating state criminal and civil penalties related to the medical use of marijuana, allowing patients meeting certain conditions to obtain marijuana produced and distributed by new state-regulated centers, or, in specific hardship cases, to grow marijuana for their own use."[14]

Polls

A poll was released and conducted by Public Policy Polling regarding the measure in late August 2012. According to reports, the poll revealed that 58% of those surveyed are in favor of medical marijuana. The actual question that was asked read: "Question 3 would eliminate state criminal and civil penalties for the medical use of marijuana by qualifying patients. If the election was today, would you vote yes or no on Question 3?"[15]

Date of Poll

Pollster

In favor

Opposed

Undecided

Number polled

Aug. 16-19, 2012

Public Policy Polling﻿

58%

27%

15%

1,115

Path to the ballot

Each of the ten original signers of the proposed measure must obtain certificates of voter registration from the board of registrars or election commission in the city or town where they are registered voters. The certificate of voter registration must be signed by at least three registrars. These certificates and the original petition must then be submitted to the Massachusetts Attorney General.

Once the petition is found acceptable, the Attorney general will prepare a summary and return it and the petition to the petitioners, who must file the petition and summary with the Massachusetts Secretary of State.

Once that is submitted, petitions are printed and circulation can begin.

Second signature gathering phase

May 2, 2012 was the last day for the Massachusetts General Assembly to enact legislation similar to the measure. However, since the general assembly did not choose to make the proposal a law, supporters must now gather additional signatures to obtain ballot access. Those signatures must have been obtained from about 1/2 of 1% of voters who voted in the last governor election and supporters must have submitted them to local clerks.[18]

Validated signatures must then be turned in by the first Wednesday of July to the Massachusetts Secretary of State's office. Since the deadline fell on a national holiday, July 4, that deadline was July 3. Supporters turned in signatures by the deadline. Those signatures were verified.[19]